Pick a country, any country!
This week we will mostly be concerning ourselves with the three-year rule, the need for a single global disciplinary body and the coming around of the gone around...
We are not entirely sure what has suddenly brought the issue to prominence as it's been a bugbear for some for yonks, but the issue of the three-year residency rule now needs to be looked at as a matter of urgency.
England's call-up of Mako Vunipola appears to have finally cracked the ring-pull on the can of worms, but there have been disgruntled utterings for donkey's years about New Zealand's tribal gathering, as well as Australia's.
The English would appear to have been the most brazen about it all, should the accusations levelled at them by Fiji coach Inoke Mali prove to be founded. The French are supposedly not far behind.
Most disturbing is the accusation that the unions and clubs are luring teenagers across the globe to their academies accusations levelled at them by Fiji coach Inoke Mali; and with the networks among the ranks of the pros, not to mention the money available, growing by the day, the whole process is not going to stop unless better regulated.
But the question always to be asked is not if the three-year rule could be altered to protect the interests of tier two - we know the answer to that one and always have - but how.
Well, we certainly think you could change the rule to only permit people allowed passports of their adopted country to play for that country. That way you stop people heading over in their early twenties - such as Mouritz Botha - and using up the spots in a national squad to which they simply have no right to, spots for which born citizens would give their eye teeth to be filling.
However, it would also allow the flexibility for someone like Toby Faletau, who has been in Wales since the age of seven and is now naturalised, to play for the country he has grown up in. Obviously there's a conflict of interest for people born in a country but who have never lived there, but maybe here you could invoke a three-year residency clause?
That's one suggestion. We are sure there are others. But one thing's for sure, when you have - as Male claims - people born to parents of country A, in country A, and growing up in country A all with realisable ambitions of playing for country B, you have a system which is doing nothing whatsoever to protect the interests of the smaller nations who work hard to.
You also have national identities for sale, naive teenagers being whisked across the world to a future far from certain and places in a national squad at the very highest level up for sale rather than for privilege. We don't think that is what international rugby should be all about...
Both Andy Hazell and Sisa Koyamaibole are going to be weighing up their actions this week after copping 14 and 12-week bans respectively for their transgressions in the Amlin Challenge Cup.
But it's barely imaginable that biting is given a lesser punishment than Hazell's furious assault on a Mont-de-Marsan player. Hazell lost control for sure, but biting someone is just savagery - surely given the dangers involved in a human bite, that's is almost as serious as gouging?
The disciplinary inconsistency problem is not going to go away until someone wakes up and realises that there needs to be some form of single independent body examining these cases globally. Admittedly, there would be logistical problems in getting players to hearings, but these are also the days of Skype and a myriad of other media creating conference calls.
In one fell swoop you rid the disciplinary verdicts of the obvious manoeuvres which frequently contrive to allow miscreants to be available for all their important games, you also let players know a precise and consistent precedent, something currently glaringly absent from the system...
It was amusing listening to the wailing from Premier Rugby Chief Mark McCafferty this week as he twigged that there had been a meeting of the nations and clubs involved in the ERC restructuring wrangle without his presence.
"It was a flawed attempt to divide and rule and it failed," said McCafferty.
And your television deal for a tournament not sanctioned by anyone present at this offensive secret meeting you are so upset about was what, precisely?
Loose pass compiled by Richard Anderson
Comments
APV1 says...
@ JayStarr & melkdave - I think a passport holder should automatically qualify. But I do think there should be other criteria available too. Not only does each country have different criteria for passport qualification and I think the IRB rules should be universal, but not everyone who can have a passport actually does. Daft though it may sound, but they may not have any need or want for a passport yet. Once in the squad they'll need one, but before then...
Posted 16:39 29th October 2012
karludy says...
All of this talk about the need to restrict the ability for people to play for a country other than that of their birth is not only blown out of proportion and unnecessary, it is actually the opposite of what needs to happen.
Firstly, as many commenters have pointed out, most of the "immigrants" who are playing for England, New Zealand, Australia, etc have actually grown up in the country they are representing.
Secondly, you would go a long way to find someone playing for a country that they don't have a passport for. Many citizens of Commonwealth countries can get a UK passport simply by having a UK-born grandparent - without even setting foot in the UK!
Now there is something of an issue with talented teenage players being encouraged to throw in their lot with the traditional rugby heavyweights, and many of them end up with very short international careers. Can you blame someone like Tasesa Lavea for putting the chance (that never actually eventuated) of playing for the All Blacks ahead of a long international career for Samoa? Or Ben Atiga? Or Tim Visser re Scotland/Netherlands?
What would really help the second tier countries is to be able to call on these players after a stand-down period, once their All Blacks/Wallabies/etc career has ended. At the moment, almost anyone who might be really good ends up in the development system for a tier 1 nation, and once capped, there's no way back, even if it's only once (eg Ben Atiga, Sosene Anesi, Lelia Masaga).
Posted 16:38 29th October 2012
andy1000 says...
An opportunity to have a long overdue debate about a contentious issue completely diluted by some terrible examples in the article. Lazy 'journalism' at best and probably on par with a lot of ill informed comments on these message boards.
Posted 16:15 29th October 2012
melkdave says...
Part 2
Thjere is a need for a global disaplinary panal or commitee ,the difference in bans given out between the NH and SH is alarming to say the least.A.Hazel lost it there is no dought ,but he cliams it was to provication ie an eye gouge,Wheather he was or not is unimportant he deserved a ban and got one .Although 14 weeks seems very harsh .While S.Higginbottom commits not one but two premeditated attacks on a helpless player ,and gets only 4 weeks ,wheres the justice or hardship in that limp wristed response i ask myself ??and the qualifying reason for it was because the attacked player wasnt hurt.That doesnt alter the fact it was a premeditated attack,with the itention to hurt the player,not once but twice.If we want this behaviour to be stamped out the authorities have to meet out sizable fines and punishments .4 weeks just doesnt cut it im afraid 14-16 weeks would have .
Posted 15:30 29th October 2012
craigsman says...
Has there been any journalism in this article at all? Even a basic level of investigation (read another website) would highlight that the Fijian coach's bleating is unfounded.
Also, re the premiership deal, wasn't that for all games relating to premiership sides with viewing in England? Then there was the proposal for the restructure of the H Cup.
Does anyone else in PR read this before it goes on the web?
Posted 15:29 29th October 2012
melkdave says...
WOW looks like its the turn of the english for Richards critisismsLOL.As to players playing for counties not of their birth ect,being a passport holder for that country looks a very good compromise.Unfortunatly it brings up a hell of alot of legal issues,and other complications.As different counties have different requirments for citazenship.The residandacy times vary for one,also some countries have quotas,while others dont ,imo its opening up a big can of worms .It also wouldnt cover a case like the S.Shingler one as Wales and Scotland are part of the same country the UK.Would it also mean that Ulster born players cant play for Ireland ,as Ulster is also part of the UK and totally seperate from the Irish republic .You cant have one rule for some and ignore it for others ,otherwise it becomes a even bigger mess,and challangable in the courts of law.Theres also human righrs legislation to consider ,can you legally deny people the right to move to better their standard of living or future of their children.Could you stop a player moving his family to be with him if he played overseas ??Of course not otherwise you break god knows how many human rights statutes.Vuinipolo came over with his family when he was 7 when his farther played RL for an english club for many successfull years ,his lived 2/3 of his life here this is his home not Fiji.The Fiji coach is talking nonsense,and most probily because there is a large Fijian compliment at present in the british army ,when their service ends they will have the same rights as the Gurkhas ,to be british citazens and settle here along with their families.I expect that is what Mali is really talking about ,as of course while they are serving in the army their families are going to be here aswell,and as such their children educated in british schols ect ,it would be illegal for the UK goverment not to do that.
Posted 15:16 29th October 2012
bokbokbok says...
Wow! New Zealand's tribal gathering! Can't believe the author wrote that... Anyway, racist overtones aside - around 8% of NZ's population has Samoan/Tongan heritage. But of course they shouldn't play for NZ should they as they're not really Kiwis are they...
Posted 15:03 29th October 2012
Danatthecorner says...
"That way you stop people heading over in their early twenties - such as Mouritz Botha - and using up the spots in a national squad to which they simply have no right to, spots for which born citizens would give their eye teeth to be filling."
Terrible example. Mouritz Botha was in England for nearly 7 years having worked his way up through the National League system with a part-time job before England called him up. There were doubtless similar English players of similar ability at the same level as him as he worked his way up but they did not want to work as hard or make the same sacrifices that he did.
MoBo certainly deserves to wear the red rose a lot more than some of these entitled types, who have been anointed as the next great lock since they first joined an academy at 16 because their dad knew someone. He served his time and is there on merit; even if you doubled the qualification period he'd still have met it.
Be the best in your position of those available, then if you aren't picked in the national squad, you can complain.
Posted 14:33 29th October 2012
Nastyned says...
The Vunipola case is exactly the same as Faletau. They both came over to UK as kids with their fathers and have stayed ever since! Similarly Manu Tuilagi came over with his brothers when 13. The passport solution is possibly the fairest solution though.
Posted 14:22 29th October 2012
leinster_goy says...
"for some yonks" richard, stop pretending that you're from Dubbers
Posted 13:21 29th October 2012
mort5000 says...
"using up the spots in a national squad to which they simply have no right to" <- feel free to join us in this century sometime.
Posted 13:20 29th October 2012
APV1 says...
Born in country = eligible.
Hold passport = eligible.
1 parent holds passport = eligible.
2 grandparents hold passport = eligible.
U18 - lived in country for at least 3 years = eligible.
18+ - lived in country for at least 5 years = eligible.
Capped in any sport for any other country = ineligible (eg Hape would be excluded).
Full Cap in any sport = decision made = no other country.
Capped in nominated "A" Team (e.g. Saxons, Wolfhounds) = decision made.
Capped in any Age-Grade National Team = decision made.
(I would, by my suggested rules above, be eligible for at least 3, probably 4 countries. And I am very English, despite my Dutch surname).
And until Fiji holds fair and democratic elections, they can stuff their opinions up their ar$es.
We need clear guidelines across the globe, with regards to sanctions. If proven to do x, you get y. And it should be in matches, not weeks.
Mr Anderson - you obviously have a bias against England, with regards to the ERC issues. Your almost as bad as some of the trolling nonsense-merchants who post on the site. I'd hoped for some journalism, rather than opinion. Perhaps I've misunderstood the purpose of the Loose Pass column. Perhaps it is an opinion piece, rather than anything else. I was under the impression that you present the topics factually and let us lot debate the subjects. I stand corrected.
The TV deal they made was on the proviso that there was no HC and, as England have handed in their notice, that's correct. But considering the whole furrore surrounding the French and English position, compared to the position of the Pro12 members, one could expect better.
Perhaps, whilst you were finding his reaction amusing, you forgot to stop and think:
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Posted 12:51 29th October 2012
lawynd says...
Also, regardless of your feelings on the actions of PRL with regard to European competition, their television deal is no more or less valid than ERC's deal for 2014 and beyond which they announced around the same time, knowing full well that PRL and LNR had served their notice. It's all posturing of course, but you're deliberately leading any meaningful discussion with your wilful ignorance of the situation.
Posted 12:14 29th October 2012
lawynd says...
Anderson, you're at it again. You can't link Mako Vunipola or Toby Faletau (or Manu Tuilagi, for that matter) to the three year residency rule - they all grew up here after their families relocated. Even Mouritz Botha is a bit of a misnomer, given that he's played in England since 2004 and was capped seven years later after rising through the ranks from the sixth tier of English rugby. It's been said before but clearly, when even the 'journalists' at PR can't even do a bit of research, it needs saying again - England currently only have one player (the aforementioned Botha) in the squad on residency grounds that moved as an adult. All the other 'foreigners' everyone constantly decries either grew up here or have English parentage.
And you can't seriously be suggesting that children are being brought into the UK from the Pacific islands with the explicit purpose of getting them to play international rugby, based on the crazed rantings of the puppet of a military junta? Even if it were true, do you not think that players would be justified in wanting instead to play for a democratically free nation that isn't oppressing its people? Ask Mike Catt if he would have preferred to play for Apartheid-era South Africa, or Brad Barritt, Tendai Mtawarira or Brian Mujati for an oppressive and isolationist regime...I bet I know their answers though. All of the players mentioned by Mali ended up here because a parent or family member (in the case of Manu) moved here to play club rugby. Whilst it's not unrealistic to expect that the children of a professional sportsman or woman might follow in their parent's footsteps, do you really think that UK clubs are playing a generationally long-term game by offering their parents contracts? Similarly, should Australia and New Zealand apologise for being a more desirable place to live than Fiji for those that emigrate there?
Posted 12:12 29th October 2012
JayStarr says...
I completely agree on the passport suggestion. I lived in the UK for 9 years and went through a hell of a lot of effort and money to finally get my British Passport and be recognised as a citizen, after spending my entire adult life there, paying taxes and National Insurance like everyone else...
I understand what it means to be born and grow up in one country and then re-settle in another country - and how long it takes for you to REALLY naturalise as a citizen of that country. This is why I think it is an absolute joke that people are being allowed to play for a country after only THREE years !? That is nothing more than an extended holiday...
The fact is, this is a completely SELFISH act - from both the administrators of the particular national union AND the player. The administrators are willing to bend over backwards and screw over their own countrymen and players who are busting their backsides to make the national squad, just so they can be more like those countries they envy... While the players who do this are only doing it because they were not good enough to make their own national squads, but still want to play test rugby... so they are literally willing to play for any country who will have them. They did not grow up wishing they could play for that country and they know NOTHING about the culture of that country after three years...
It's a disgraceful joke from everyone involved and should be ceased as soon as possible - both for the sake of the local rugby players who are being left out of the national squad to make room for foreigners, and to prevent the national rugby scene from turning into something resembling "European" club football.
For me the most logical solution is to only allow CITIZENS of the respective countries to play for the national sides. If you don't have a passport, you don't play.
Posted 12:02 29th October 2012